Monday, October 28, 2013

Liberals Miss the Point

Homer and Jethro were out hunting. Night fell and they set up camp, ate dinner and climbed into their sleeping bags.

At about 2:00 AM Homer woke up and found himself gazing into the night sky. He reached over and shook Jethro, waking him up.

“Jethro, wake up! What do you see?”

Jethro thought a minute then he said, “I see a clear sky and stars.”

“Jethro,” asked Homer, “What does that tell you?”

“It tells me that the stars are out, that the universe is vast, that the North Star is right where it belongs and that God is still on His throne. Why, what does it tell you?”

“You numb chuck! It tells me that someone has stolen our tent!”

See, everything Jethro said was true, but he completely missed the point.

That’s the way liberals are. They have all sorts of irrelevant things they call facts (even though they are really very skewed), but they are unable to draw the right conclusions from them.

Liberals just miss the point. They totally do not understand the concept of liberty.


Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - We understand the concept of liberty just fine.

"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

That is why we object to Republicans, Conservatives and Evangelical Christians who are constantly trying to pass oppressive and restrictive laws designed to control our lives, limit our behavior and dictate our political views.

Liberals are much more vigorous in our support of liberty than Conservatives.

The only time that Conservatives endorse liberty is when it comes to the "liberty" of corporations to steal, gouge, deceive, pollute and otherwise exercise their "liberty" to be free of any restrictions or regulations on their ability to be as greedy and dishonest as their lack of morals and conscience permits.

Or when it it comes to the "liberty" of their religious leaders to impose their medieval, superstitious equivalent of Sharia Law on the vast majority of the population who do not believe in that nonsense.

We understand liberty very well, thank you.

Joe said...

XO: Nothing you said in your comment indicated any understanding at all of the concept of liberty.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Talk about passing "oppressive and restrictive laws designed to control our lives," that is exactly what OBAMACARE is - and it was initiated by and supported by and fought for by LIBERALS!!!!!

sue hanes said...

Joe - Oh - I thought it was the other way around. I saw Homer as the Liberal and Jethro as the Conservative.

Dave Miller said...

No Glenn you are wrong... The very plan of the ACA, known as Obamacare is a GOP plan, complete with mandatory enrollment, that was pushed and promoted by the Heritage Foundation. Many GOP leaders supported this type of plan in the 80's because their supporters, the health insurance industry, wanted it.

This model is even the model the GOP led house has consistently said they prefer for Medicare and social security.

A mandate to participate...
Grants to states to build competitive exchanges...
Means testing for cost of benefits...

All GOP/Republican ideas...

Whether it erodes freedom or not, I don't know... But this I do know... Very few people who want the freedom to not get health insurance would like or support the idea of a hospital having the liberty to not treat them if they arrived with a problem and no cash on hand to pay the bill...

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Gee, Dave, why have I never heard this before - that it was a Republican idea? Could it be because it has been Obama's baby from the beginning, forced to pass by Demokrats before even being read, and championed by the Demokrats from the get-go?

I have no problem with a government health plan for the needy - the truly needy. But it erodes our liberty when we are forced to accept the government plan, a plan which has forced many people to lose the health plans they have. And all the mandates of what must be covered, is another violation of liberty. There are plenty of us who don't want to pay for insurance which has to provide birth control and abortions, let alone all sorts of unnecessary expenses for psychological "illnesses" and so forth. The big lie that people would be able to keep their health plans has been proven for what it is.

Well, you people who want it will realize suddenly that it far from being affordable, and you will also see the problems they now have in Canada and Europe - shortages of doctors with long waits for appointments, medical procedures denied due to age of the patient not being worth keeping them alive, etc.

Duckys here said...

Brother XO, get jiggy with the liberty.

Ask Joe about liberty. His employer stiffs him out of his retirement fund, without a dreaded government program he'd be unable to walk or in constant pain, he swears allegiance to the several thousand year old code of nomads ... this is a guy who understands liberty.

Duckys here said...

Glenn, if you have a perfect health insurance system then let us know.

My guess is the government pays for most of yours but you wish to deny this benefit to others. That suits you.

If you have a moment, please tell me why we should retain private for profit insurance companies who have an antitrust exemption and provide no value. I just don't see how they would fit in your perfect system.

Now it's true that the ACA retains these leeches but we have to take it a step at a time.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, was the idea floated and promoted by the Heritage Foundation or not?

You'll be hard pressed to present any evidence contrary to that fact.

Almost every idea in the current ACA was supported originally by the GOP and conservatives.

Do you have any evidence to refute that? Simply saying you are tired of hearing that, of have heard that does not change the fact of the matter.

Yes Obama and the Dems passed it, and as such, it is their baby, but to disown the GOP footprint in this bill is not being accurate.

As for your liberties being threatened, Glenn, you can choose not to enroll. There will be consequences, but it is still your choice.

It is just like salvation. People have free will to choose, or choose not follow Jesus... and then they accept the consequences.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

When I was employed my employer paid a portion of my health insurance - I was employed through my employer.

When I retired, part of my retirement benefit was that my former employer would still pay part of my health insurance.

Since most people I know get their insurance through their employer, or former employer if they have a retirement package with their employer, I don't see why you fine me to be in such a different position. I worked for my employer for 38 years before I was forced to retire due to my age. You always begrudge the fact that I have health insurance as part of my retirement plan. Does it really matter who I was employed by? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

My point is that those of us who have health insurance already should not be forced to lose it because of the very unaffordable health care act. Nor should employers have to be required to include insurance for things not medically necessary and/or against their ethical belief system - you know, like birth control and abortion? (Everyone has access to affordable birth control, via either condoms, the pill or abstinence). To make others pay for what should be personal responsibility is asinine and a violation of personal liberty. To be forced to pay for abortion is a travesty!

Duckys here said...

What they WILL NOT admit, Dave, is that the so called fight was the fight to prevent any vestage of single payer.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

As of now I don't have to enroll. But why shouldn't I be allowed to keep the policy I now have? Why should I not be allowed to choose between what I have and Obamacare?

Do you want to see more liberties taken away, as exposed by this video?

Not only more liberties taken away, but a travesty in that the ACA is nothing more than an Amnesty program putting legal immigrants and citizens out of work:

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, I was going to watch the video until I saw it was Ted Cruz... the guys a clown and even the GOP knows it as people are distancing themselves from him.

He does not speak for even a majority of the GOP, let alone America.

There is simply no evidence that Americans are losing their jobs, or even being cut back in large numbers as a result of the ACA... can you point to some data instead of someones opinions?

You've still never answered the question... are the ideas and policies in the ACA primarily drawn from the Heritage Foundation or not?

As for your health plan, my guess is that you are going to get to keep it right? You even state that you do not have to enroll in the ACA so why are you so peeved?

What is changing in your personal life, as a result of the ACA that is taking away your liberties?

You are still free to do whatever you want, aren't you?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, so it is someone you don't like, and even RINOs don't like, because he presents the facts. How about watching the video and try to refute him? He proves the fact that illegals will be getting the jobs due to ACA which levies fines and higher costs if a business owner elects to hire citizens and legal residents.

But don't let facts stand in your way.

I have no idea about the Heritage Foundation - I don't follow them. But IF a conservative organization came up with ideas for a national health insurance, I"m sure the gargantuan unaffordable thing that came about is not recognizable from the origin.

I don't know if I will be able to keep my health plan; I only know I can keep it for now. But what harm has it caused me? Since 2012 my monthly premiums have doubled, all my copays have doubled, and according to my health insurance provider it was due to them being required to add things to their policies.

Something doesn't have to affect me directly for me to be peeved about it - I am peeved at the injustice of socialism. After all, a man robbing a bank 15 miles from me doesn't directly affect me either but I certainly get peeved that someone was robbed!

I do know ONE thing which has raised rates and that is the mandate for insurance companies to allow young adults to stay on their parents' policy until they are 26. 26!!!!! It wasn't so bad when they were able to stay on until they were 22 (and that was bad enough) but at least the excuse was because that would allow them to be in college without working and buying insurance, but at 26 they should be on their own! Without buying separate policies, the insurance companies loose money - which they pass on to the rest of us.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Yep, millions are losing their current insurance because of the ACA which Obama promised would not do that.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, he does not present facts... he is presenting his opinion, as most politicians do.

What he is positing, and you are to, is a potential future worry about something that has yet to happen.

I am having a hard time seeing undocumented/illegal workers taking jobs away from people because of the ACA.

As for the Heritage Foundation, their plan is the very plan that Romney signed in MA.

And their ideas for the plan are the very ideas that GOP Congressional leaders have pushed for years as solutions to the problems of Medicare and Social Security.

Let me ask something... if it could be shown that the elements of the ACA that you oppose, birth control and abortion, actually lowered health care costs, would that be a good thing for our country? What if by including mental health coverage we could lower health care costs overall because we'd be treating issues earlier rather than in the middle of a crisis... would that be a good thing?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


FIrst, there is nothing the Constitution that even allows the ACA. The SCOTUS had to call it a tax to get past them.

I don't care if birth control saves health care money - if someone wants that as part of THEIR policy, let THEM pay for it or keep their pants on. Birth control is free.

As for abortion, there is no medical need for abortion - none, nada. Abortion is the murder of an unborn child, and the government shouldn't be subsidizing it in any way, nor should other people who don't want their policies to pay for it be forced to do so.

"Mental health" is a boondoggle. Most of what passes for "mental illness" is nothing more than lack of self control. (The mind can't be ill, by the way, because it is intangible.) If someone has a brain malfunctioning due to genetic defects or injury, that is treated by the medical profession and not the psychobabble profession.

Again, if someone wants coverage for "mental illness" let THEM pay for it. Otherwise you are treading on MY liberties by forcing me to pay for unnecessary medical expenses that others want free of charge.

And if you want to believe the what Cruz demonstrated is false, then go ahead and drink the Cloward-Piven kool-aid.

Xavier Onassis said...

Just so everyone is clear, when G.E.C. says " I worked for my employer for 38 years before I was forced to retire due to my age. You always begrudge the fact that I have health insurance as part of my retirement plan. Does it really matter who I was employed by?"

He worked for the FAA. Part of the Federal Government.

Which means for all of those 38 years and to this very day, the U.S. Taxpayer has been footing the bill for G.E.C.'s income, healthcare and benefits.

Oh, and G.E.C., your "retirement" is called a Fedral Pension.

Corporations these days do not offer pensions. When I retire, my employer is completely shed of me within 30 days. They contribute absolutely nothing to my healthcare or income.

But you, courtesy of the American Taxpayer, have a really sweet deal that you want to deny to others.

Whet's the word I'm looking for here...oh yeah, HYPOCRITE.

Xavier Onassis said...

Oh, and G.E.C., if there is ANYONE that I have ever encountered online or in real life who could benefit from comprehensive affordable mental health care, it is YOU!

Everytime you scream "Cloward-Piven" all I hear is "WACKO-WACKO!"

Get some help buddy. You're a danger to yourself and those around you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


So, if my employer was the Federal Government, and I was employed in a Constitutionally-approved job (5 years military, 3 years Postal Service, 30 years FAA), then I’m not supposed to have gotten a retirement program? My uncle worked his whole life with Railway Express Agency and he got a retirement with benefits. Many, many people I know have pension programs with the corporations they work for. So your LIE that corporations don’t offer them is exposed.

Admittedly, these friends have been working for many years, before IRA’s became popular, etc. How many corporations today still offer pensions I don’t think you have a clue about - you just make an assertion.

But let’s say no one nowadays offers pensions - SO?!?! I worked for mine! Should I not accept the benefits of the job? I earned every penny I was paid.

Even the government retirement program changed during my tenure, so that those who hired on in the late 1980s don’t have the same plan. SOOO????!!!

While you put money in Social Security, I didn’t. I’m not qualified for it. For 33 years I put 7% of my pay into my retirement plan. So I’m not supposed to benefit from it? And by taking the Health insurance, I reduced my annuity - I didn’t have to take it.

I don’t want to deny anyone healthcare, which exposes another lie of yours. I just don’t want the abomination of a program that the ACA is. That program is unfair, super costly, forces employers to cut hours, forces more employers to let people go so there are more jobless people out there, etc, etc. IT was not thought through - it was just ram-rodded on us.

X.O. you are the danger to other people - you want to deny people what they earned. Typical left-wing wacko.

Now explain why it is hypocrisy for me to decry the abomination called Obamacare? And explain to me why you are so damned jealous of me because I worked for the government! You do know, I hope, that a large majority of the people trying to get the job don’t even make it past the Civil Service Test, don’t you? Probably not. And even then, they didn’t hire anyone making less than a 90% [I made 100%]. And then for my post office job I had to train on a letter sorting machine and pass the test on that one, which weeds out another big percentage of people. Then I had to pass city schemes where you had 60 seconds to look at an address an decide which letter carrier got it, a requirement that got many people dismissed because of its difficulty. Then I had to taken more tests to get into the FAA, had to spend four months training at the Academy in order to qualify for OJT, and that place also washes out a high percentage of people. Then you have to train OJT until certification on all positions and if you don’t do it in the allotted time you suddenly have no job! It wasn’t any walk in the park to get my job, and it isn’t a walk in the park to work the airplanes at busy airports.

But you somehow think that it was just out of courtesy that I was paid to do a job that not many people can do, but is a 100% necessary occupation, unlike a large majority of government jobs.

Funny, isn’t it, how people like you want the government to take care of people from the cradle to the grave, but if someone actually WORKED for the government, it was somehow a sweet deal courtesy of the American taxpayer!!

You a a stinking jackass.

Duckys here said...

Glenn, you go on about constitutionality as if you are unaware that SCOTUS has ruled the ACA to be in compliance.

What's your beef?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


ACA is NOT Constitutional any more than is abortion. In both cases SCOTUS had to dream up something to make things fit. ACA became a tax, and therefore it is Constitutional. What sort of tax is a huge program like the ACA?!??!? For abortion they had to find "emanations" from a "penumbra" surrounding the Constitution. Oh, Yeah, and don't forget Dred Scot.

Yep, we know the SCOTUS really cares about what the Constitution says, don't we?

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, how are we to determine the constitutionality of something? Is that not the role of the SCOTUS?

Also, would you call schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or panic attacks lack of self control, or are they legitimate problems that can be addressed through medical means?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

How can we tell the Constitutionality of something? Read the text! Something few people do nowadays. It was not written only for scholars and lawyers - it was written for the average person to understand.

Schizophrenia is a debatable topic, but if it is caused by a problem in the brain, then it can be medically treated. Bi-polar is nonsense, and is indeed a matter of self-control or ceasing self-focus leading to depression. IF there ever is found a brain malfunction, that can be treated medically. Panic attacks are not medical - they are emotional.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "... I was employed in a Constitutionally-approved job..."

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say we will have a federal agency that keeps airplanes from crashing into each other?

Because I've read the Constitution many times and I missed that part?

Look, the bottom line is, because you worked for the federal government and have a federal pension, every dime you ever made, every dime you get today, and all of your health care and benefits are now and have always been paid for by the American Taxpayer.

I bet a lot of those people have never flown on an airplane. There are probably some who view flying as unnatural and think if God had wanted man to fly He would have given us wings! Why should their hard earned money from the PRIVATE SECTOR get taxed to subsidise something they don't support, don't benefit from just to support your lavish lifestyle?

I'm being facetious, of course. But that makes just as much sense as your argument that because YOU don't believe in birth control and YOU don't believe mental health issues are real that YOU shouldn't be forced to subsidize those things with YOUR tax dollars.

That, sir, is why you are a HYPOCRITE.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Air Traffic Control, just as the Postal Service, is interstate commerce. Not only that, but ATC and USPS are both international services. The Postal Service is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But ATC involves international treaties and agreements which can not be done by individual states.

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE gets benefits from aviation, which is kept safe by ATC. Mail, food, products of every sort are shipped via from aviation. Fire fighting, air evac, pipeline and powerline patrol, crop dusting, etc. Everyone is affected.

I AM an American taxpayer, so you could also say I paid my own salary. But what difference does that make - the Federal government needs employees in such things as the military, postal service and ATC. How do you think they pay employees? And how does my being a fed employee change anything about my status? What difference does it make who I worked for when I worked my butt off and paid my taxes just like everyone else.

“Lavish lifestyle”!?!?! ME!!!! I wish. You are so full of B.S. You haven’t a clue.

It isn’t a matter of what I believe vs what you believe. Health insurance is for medical necessities, and neither birth control nor abortion are medical necessities. How is birth control medically necessary? Can’t individuals practice self control? Abortion is killing an innocent child - how is that ever, ever medically necessary? Should I demand you pay for my movie ticket by claiming it is medically necessary?

THAT is the primary problem AFTER the unconstitutional idea of the ACA.

You don’t seem to know the meaning of the word, “hypocrite.” It means one who preaches something but practices the opposite of it. I have never asked anyone to pay for my birth control, nor have I ever tried or even hinted at preventing people from getting affordable health insurance, let alone health care. So you are again proven to be a bald-face LIAR!

Duckys here said...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's where the ACA comes in.

At least in some readings of the Constitution which don't defer to yours.

Duckys here said...

... by the way Glenn, everyone gets benefits from health insurance.

Although the founders didn't mention it specifically since medical insurance is a 20th century idea.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - Civics Quiz! You said "Air Traffic Control, just as the Postal Service, is interstate commerce."

Your question is, which branch of government, the Executive, Legislative or Judicial gets to interpret the Constitution to decide if Air Traffic Control falls under the Interstate Commerce clause?

"What difference does it make who I worked for..."

Because you are CONSTANTLY and LOUDLY whining about taxes and government spending when YOU YOURSELF owe EVERYTHING YOU HAVE to taxes and government spending!

If you cannot see the hypocrisy in that then you don't have two brain cells to rub together!

"It isn’t a matter of what I believe vs what you believe"

Yes. That is exactly what it is.

"Health insurance is for medical necessities"

No, it isn't. It is for medical EXPENSES.

"...and neither birth control nor abortion are medical necessities."

In some cases it is medically necessary. You don't get to make that decision. The patient and her physician get to make that call. Not you, not your make believe "God".

"Abortion is killing an innocent child..."

No it isn't. It is preventing an undifferentiated mass of cells from multiplying and creating an unwanted medical condition.

An unwanted pregnancy is like cancer. You do everything you can to prevent it but if it happens you remove it as quickly and as early as possible.

We aren't animals and we aren't God's meat puppets. We get to choose whether we or not we reproduce.

And our medical insurance needs to cover that medical expense.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The “general welfare” has nothing to do with today’s so-called “welfare.” But if you want to use it that way, as FDR did, then the ACA doesn’t promote the “GENERAL” welfare, rather it screws 90% of the people! The idea - the understanding - of the writers of the Constitution was not that it take care of the “general welfare” of individual people, rather it was for the Fed Gov’t to provide for the general welfare of the individual states - i.e., act on the behalf of the states for defense, taxation, etc.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Nowhere does it give allowance for micromanaging the insurance industry, You might want to look at what James Madison said about it:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”Remarks on the House floor, debates on Cod Fishery bill, (February 1792)

How about Thomas Jefferson, in 1825:
“[We] disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think or pretend would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.”

Only socialist liberals like FDR and Obamanation can twist the Constitution to say the government can micromanage the health insurance industry.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Everyone benefits from THEIR OWN insurance. What next, government homeowners’ insurance, government car insurance, government life insurance?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


My complaints about tax expenditures are about the WASTE and UNCONSTITUTIONAL expenses. THAT is NOT hypocrisy. My job was neither a waste of money, nor a pork-barrel project, nor unconstitutional. YOU still don’t know the meaning of word.

Health insurance is for expenses incurred by medical necessities. Which is why, so far anyway (at least mine doesn’t), they don’t cover bodily mutilation to change external appearances to look like a member of the opposite sex, nor do they pay for breast augmentation, etc. Medical NECESSITIES are the expenses they help with.

Abortion is NEVER a medical necessity. NEVER. It is murder. Your description of the conception is at odds with medical science, demonstrating your abject stupidity and bias against a pre-born child. If they did “everything to prevent it” then they wouldn’t have had sex. If you have sex, accept the personal responsibility and don’t make other people pay for it. You choose to reproduce when you have sex without some sort of birth control. And birth control is as cheap as buying a hamburger, and yet those who want the government to pay for bc will usually be smoking expensive cigarettes. Free birth control is abstinence.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, while I am not fan, or supporter of abortion, I struggle with your view that it is never a medical necessity.

I have plenty of medical people in my family who would tell you that there are in fact times when an abortion could be necessary to save the life of the mother.

Are you saying that is false information? Never, never, never is an abortion essential to save the life of a living, breathing potential mom?

Beyond that, I assume you, like probably Joe, hold your understanding of abortion from a Christian worldview. I too am a Christian so I have no problem with someone holding that view.

I would ask this though... is it right for a religious group to force others, in a secular pluralistic society, to live under laws derived from a religious worldview.

And if it is right, how do we determine which religion gets to rule the roost?

For instance, in Utah, would it be alright for the majority population [Mormons] to impose laws derived from their worldview on the non Mormon population?

How about in Hawai'i? As the majority group there is Buddhist, would it be just for them to impose their religious views on Christians in the form of laws to support their worldview?

How does a society of people from various backgrounds, countries and cultures make these decisions?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


There is never, ever a medical need to "abort." Many times people have been told that to carry a baby to term it would be hazardous to the mother, and yet the mother had the child anyway and survived just fine; a friend of ours had that situation, but she elected to carry the baby. Now, if there is a bonafide, 100% chance of the woman dying, which is an extremely rare thing, then it becomes a matter of which life to save when only one life can be saved. No need for abortion coverage for health care for all for a rare occurrence, and and that type of life-saving procedure could be covered and I don't think anyone would object.

My understanding of abortion isn't from a Christian worldview, because I held that opinion prior to becoming a believer. My understanding of abortion is due to medical science and biology which says it is a human life from conception.

In our society, someone's morals are being forced on everyone else; the question becomes which morals are best. The leftist homosexual agenda is forcing their same-sex fake marriage on everyone, and yet are you complaining about that?

By the way, every law we have is derived from the Judeo-Christian worldview (at least it used to be before sanctioning of homosexuality).

But all this is a red herring, since it isn't the Christian worldview which determines that abortion is wrong. I know - and have known - many unbelievers and rabid atheists who are against abortion on the basis of the scientific facts.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "... medical science and biology which says it is a human life from conception."

That is a flat out, absolute lie. Science and biology says no such thing.

An undifferentiated mass of cells has the POTENTIAL to become a human life if it develops that far.

But from scientific and biological point of view, a fertilized egg or a blastocyst is NOT a human life.

You are just flat out wrong about that.

Now, if you want to believe that the Holy Spirit breathes a soul into that fertilized egg while the man and woman are still naked and sweaty having a smoke, that's fine. But that is your religious belief and it is not supported by science.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


No, the lie is YOURS. From conception it is a human life. That is the medical fact.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O. and others who doubt that a human life exists from conception:

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - There is not a single shred of scientific fact in either of those links.

I'm not surprised. The folks on your side of the ideological fence have made it embarrassingly clear on so many occasions that they have absolutely no grasp of the fundamental basics of human biology ('legitimate rape').

Look, a fertilized egg is no more or less alive than an unfertilized egg or a single sperm cell.

When an egg is fertilized, there is no immediate and magical transformation that takes place and turns that mass of cells into a full fledged human being. Fertilization kicks off a biological process that if allowed to continue has the potential of eventually creating a human being.

Do I also need to explain to you about the male and female naughty bits and how that whole process works?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Your are in denial, which is typical of your murdering ilk

Joe said...

XO: From the moment of conception the developing baby exhibits all of the requirements to be considered life: it grows, it takes on nurishment, it gives of waste products and conforms to all other scientific requirements.

That it is human can be immediately demonstrated by the fact that it contains human DNA, not bird DNA, not fish DNA and not plant DNA...human DNA. It is uniquely human.

So, if it is life, and if it is uniquely human, it is human life. It is not potential life, potential human life, or anything else potential.

To speak in terms of Potentiality is very dangerous. A child of 6 is a potential mature human, but because it is not yet mature it might be considered not worth preserving under certain cirtumstances.

I know a country that believed that once. They actually believed they could rule the world.

They failed.